1. Heard Mr. Shingade, learned Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Jadhav, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 - State and Ms. Sawant, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. Present Writ Petition impugns the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai in Representation No.63 of 2023 filed by Petitioner.

3. Mr. Shingade, learned Advocate for Petitioner would draw my attention to the impugned order dated 26.09.2023 appended at Exhibit "Q" - page No.88 of the Petition to contend that in the facts and circumstances of the present case Petitioner is entitled to damages and compensation in respect of loss caused to the Petitioner being a consumer of the Respondent - Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (for short "MSEDCL") for not providing electricity connection in the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner after the old meter was burnt down and a new meter was installed.

4. By virtue of the impugned order, judgment and order dated 26.05.2023 passed by Respondent No.3 in Case No.189 filed by Petitioner was upheld on the ground of limitation.

5. Briefly stated, facts are that Petitioner is a consumer of electricity supplied by Respondent - MSEDCL. On 10.06.2010, electricity connection to the Petitioner's godown / factory premises was disconnected due to the electric meter having caught fire and burnt due to excess overload. On 30.06.2010, Petitioner deposited amount of Rs.3,150/- for replacement of the old burnt meter with a new meter. However, due to shortage of meters Respondent No.4 installed a new meter only on 25.01.2011. It is the case of Petitioner that despite Petitioner having deposited the amount of Rs.3,150/- for installation of new meter on 30.06.2010, it was installed only on 25.01.2011 after a period of 6 months during which Petitioner suffered a substantial loss in his business income due to there being no electricity connection in his premises. Electricity connection to Petitioner's meter was restored only in 2023 and hence Petitioner claims compensation for loss of business during the interregnum.

6. It is Petitioner's case that on 15.01.2011 Petitioner received a consolidated bill of Rs.21,780/- for the period when there was no electricity connection provided to his premises and he challenged the same thereafter. By letter dated 05.03.2011, Petitioner requested Respondent No.3 to revise the bill in view of the aforesaid fact. Petitioner did not pay the bill and he received a further bill of Rs.69,620/- from Respondent - MSEDCL which was challenged by him. Petitioner received recovery notice dated 27.03.2016 from the Sub Legal Officer of MSEDCL demanding amount of Rs.64,750.18 towards amount of the outstanding bill. However Petitioner once again represented on 03.12.2020 to the Chief Commercial Officer of Respondent - MSEDCL by raising a grievance.

7. Respondent No.4 issued a fresh notice dated 15.12.2020 followed by notice dated 18.12.2020 demanding payment of outstanding bill amount. Petitioner responded to the notice by filing reply dated 20.01.2021 and requested Respondent to resolve the long pending issue. Petitioner thereafter through his Advocate sent legal notice dated 03.11.2022 to Respondent No.2 and sought restoration of electricity connection and damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,40,000/- for loss caused for 144 months calculated @ Rs.35,000/- per month along with interest @ 18% per annum.

8. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed Application nomenclature as Case No.189 before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short "CGRF") of Respondent - MSEDCL. Notice was issued in the Application and though Petitioner was heard on 18.04.2023 it is his case that on 26.05.2023 CGRF passed judgment and order without hearing him any further.

9. Being aggrieved, Petitioner filed Representation No.63 of 2023 against the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the CGRF before the Electricity Ombudsman, Mumbai. Petitioner was heard. Equally Respondent - MSEDCL was hear